5 ms·

The farmer owns farmland that could be used but isn’t.

• hjek 8y ago
  Of course it is problematic that land owners are actually rewarded for their wealth. But at least it's difficult to create new would-be farmland. However if the would-be fisherman owns a fishing boat that could be used but isn't, then perhaps a lot of would-be fishing boats would suddenly be constructed so would-be fishers would be paid for their would-be fish catching.
  • praneshp 8y ago
    > Of course it is problematic that land owners are actually rewarded for their wealth No, they are rewarded for playing along with whatever scheme's currently running. Stop trying to demonize them.
    • hjek 8y ago
      In UK at least, land ownership is very concentrated, so these "farming subsidies" are not usually going to the people you'd expect: > When our government says "we must help the farmers", it means "we must help the 0.1%". Most of the land here is owned by exceedingly wealthy people. Some of them are millionaires from elsewhere: sheikhs, oligarchs and mining magnates who own vast estates in this country. Although they might pay no taxes in the UK, they receive millions in farm subsidies.[0] > Farm subsidies, which remain limitless as a result of the Westminster government’s lobbying, ensure that every household in Britain hands £245 a year to the richest people in the land.[1] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-subsidies-blatant-transfer-of-cash-to-rich https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-s... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-spring https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landow...